[afx114]

[quote=flu]For example, the gay-marriage ban in CA. Personally, I had no issues with gay-marriage, but the voters did speak that they wanted the ban. Why should a judge be allowed to overturn what the people wanted? Same thing could be said about the immigration bill in Arizona. And this is also why CA will never do anything to take care of immigration issues/etc.[/quote]

I agree with the gist of your argument, but not necessarily with your specific examples. It’s not so cut and dry as “overturning the will of the people” when it comes to civil rights. I would argue, and I’m guessing the judges you mention would argue as well, that civil rights are not subject to popular vote or legislation. At one time the majority of the people wanted interracial marriage banned, but the will of the majority was overturned for the rights of the minority. In many ways, this is exactly how the system is supposed to work and exactly why the balance of power was designed the way it was.

[afx114]

[quote=flu]For example, the gay-marriage ban in CA. Personally, I had no issues with gay-marriage, but the voters did speak that they wanted the ban. Why should a judge be allowed to overturn what the people wanted? Same thing could be said about the immigration bill in Arizona. And this is also why CA will never do anything to take care of immigration issues/etc.[/quote]

I agree with the gist of your argument, but not necessarily with your specific examples. It’s not so cut and dry as “overturning the will of the people” when it comes to civil rights. I would argue, and I’m guessing the judges you mention would argue as well, that civil rights are not subject to popular vote or legislation. At one time the majority of the people wanted interracial marriage banned, but the will of the majority was overturned for the rights of the minority. In many ways, this is exactly how the system is supposed to work and exactly why the balance of power was designed the way it was.

[afx114]

[quote=flu]For example, the gay-marriage ban in CA. Personally, I had no issues with gay-marriage, but the voters did speak that they wanted the ban. Why should a judge be allowed to overturn what the people wanted? Same thing could be said about the immigration bill in Arizona. And this is also why CA will never do anything to take care of immigration issues/etc.[/quote]

I agree with the gist of your argument, but not necessarily with your specific examples. It’s not so cut and dry as “overturning the will of the people” when it comes to civil rights. I would argue, and I’m guessing the judges you mention would argue as well, that civil rights are not subject to popular vote or legislation. At one time the majority of the people wanted interracial marriage banned, but the will of the majority was overturned for the rights of the minority. In many ways, this is exactly how the system is supposed to work and exactly why the balance of power was designed the way it was.

[afx114]

[quote=sdduuuude]My message, as always, is to regulate behaviors that are nasty.[/quote]

“Nasty” is conveniently subjective. To some, the pollution spewed by low-mpg vehicles and the blood & treasure spent to fuel them is “nasty.” To others, 2 Live Crew is “nasty” but they just wanna be As Nasty As They Wanna Be.

[afx114]

[quote=sdduuuude]My message, as always, is to regulate behaviors that are nasty.[/quote]

“Nasty” is conveniently subjective. To some, the pollution spewed by low-mpg vehicles and the blood & treasure spent to fuel them is “nasty.” To others, 2 Live Crew is “nasty” but they just wanna be As Nasty As They Wanna Be.

[afx114]

[quote=sdduuuude]My message, as always, is to regulate behaviors that are nasty.[/quote]

“Nasty” is conveniently subjective. To some, the pollution spewed by low-mpg vehicles and the blood & treasure spent to fuel them is “nasty.” To others, 2 Live Crew is “nasty” but they just wanna be As Nasty As They Wanna Be.

[afx114]

[quote=sdduuuude]My message, as always, is to regulate behaviors that are nasty.[/quote]

“Nasty” is conveniently subjective. To some, the pollution spewed by low-mpg vehicles and the blood & treasure spent to fuel them is “nasty.” To others, 2 Live Crew is “nasty” but they just wanna be As Nasty As They Wanna Be.

[afx114]

[quote=sdduuuude]My message, as always, is to regulate behaviors that are nasty.[/quote]

“Nasty” is conveniently subjective. To some, the pollution spewed by low-mpg vehicles and the blood & treasure spent to fuel them is “nasty.” To others, 2 Live Crew is “nasty” but they just wanna be As Nasty As They Wanna Be.

[afx114]

[quote=meadandale]Au Contraire…Obama care will be REQUIRING that every one have health insurance or they will be fined by the IRS. Period.[/quote]

And your argument against this is?

[afx114]

[quote=meadandale]Au Contraire…Obama care will be REQUIRING that every one have health insurance or they will be fined by the IRS. Period.[/quote]

And your argument against this is?

[afx114]

[quote=meadandale]Au Contraire…Obama care will be REQUIRING that every one have health insurance or they will be fined by the IRS. Period.[/quote]

And your argument against this is?

[afx114]

[quote=meadandale]Au Contraire…Obama care will be REQUIRING that every one have health insurance or they will be fined by the IRS. Period.[/quote]

And your argument against this is?

[afx114]

[quote=meadandale]Au Contraire…Obama care will be REQUIRING that every one have health insurance or they will be fined by the IRS. Period.[/quote]

And your argument against this is?

[afx114]

This argument seems to be getting framed into the dorm/foxhole (mind the pun) context, but what about the desk job Arabic translator who goes to his own home every night and doesn’t sleep or shower with his fellow soldiers? Under what situation would his homosexuality undermine the mission or morale? What about the lesbian VA nurse? Or the bisexual admiral’s secretary? Do these judgements only apply when in the immediate field of battle?

[afx114]

This argument seems to be getting framed into the dorm/foxhole (mind the pun) context, but what about the desk job Arabic translator who goes to his own home every night and doesn’t sleep or shower with his fellow soldiers? Under what situation would his homosexuality undermine the mission or morale? What about the lesbian VA nurse? Or the bisexual admiral’s secretary? Do these judgements only apply when in the immediate field of battle?

[Author]

Posts